Dec 022023
 

On one hand, the utility of this ad for selling Chevy’s seems limited. After all, it doesn’t tell you much about how they perform or what they cost, though there is the suggestion that they can last a long time. On the other hand, the nature of the ad is such that people will be talking about it (and they are), and any publicity is good publicity. On that latter score it’s a remarkably effective ad, very effectively mastering the “holiday tearjerker” trope. If this *doesn’t* work you up a little, I can only assume that “Jurassic Bark” left you unmoved and the Iron Giant’s final “Suuupermannn” was met with a shrug.

 

 Posted by at 4:31 pm
Nov 212023
 

Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song “Born in the USA” is famous not only for having been incredibly popular, bit for being “misunderstood.” Springsteen’s intent, as is pretty clear by a straight reading of the lyrics, is to tell the tale not just of a Viet Nam vet (the US was barely a decade out from that expensive but successful war and incredibly unsuccessful peace), but of a nation in disrepair. But it was grabbed onto by the political right – such as President Ronald Reagan – as a a rah-rah USA USA USA song to rally around. Then as now, leftists explain this as Republicans & conservatives being “media illiterate” or simply dumb. But is that really the case? Consider my own experience.

When it came out I was a dumbass early teenager with no particular political leanings. Yet I also saw the song as pro-USA, and I loved the hell out of it. And, yes, I listened to and understood the lyrics, and saw the darkness therein. But I – and I suspect a whole lot of other people – simply interpreted them differently from the intention of Springsteen. Yes, the lyrics reference the dire economic situation faced by *many* people at the time, coming out of the OPEC oil embargoes and Carters economic flailings and the collapse of the Apollo program and all the rest. But here’s the thing: two people can look at the same thing and see very different results… same screen, different movies.

Everybody in the US in the early 80’s knew that things sucked. You could hardly experience Carter and inflation and stagflation and Iran and the Soviets and the collapse of the iron, auto, farming and a bunch of other industries and not notice it. But there are two ways to deal with “things suck:” despair and determination. And thus we had two different approaches to understanding the song:

Leftists: “Things suck in the USA, therefore the USA sucks.”

Rightists: “Things suck in the USA right now. But we’ll fix it.”

In 1984, things sucked. But they didn’t suck quite as bad as they had a few years before, and things were clearly improving. Those in the middle and on the right saw this, and interpreted “Born in the USA” in that light.

And we got this for the 1984 Presidential campaign:

Essentially, “Born in the USA” was a negative ad against the US that got turned into a positive ad for the US. And that irritated the hell out of a lot of lefties who wanted to wallow in despair… and wanted everyone else to do the same.  Turning it into a nationalistic anthem was a giant middle finger to the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Positivity and optimism can do wonders in an election, and in society. “I Like Ike,” JFK’s “Camelot,” “Morning in America,” “Make America Great Again,” etc. Turning a negative into a positive is a sign you’re on the right road.

 Posted by at 11:44 pm
Nov 202023
 

I recently re-watched the 1998 movie “Pleasantville.” For those unaware, this starred a pre-Spiderman Tobey McGuire as a kid who’s a fan of the fictional 1950’s black and white TV show “Pleasantville,” sort of a cliche of the bland, utopian family shows of the time. It turns into a fantasy when Don Knotts shows up as a TV repairman who gives Tobey’s character a magical remote that zaps Tobey and his sister, played by Reese Witherspoon, into an episode of “Pleasantville.” There everything is in black and white, the world is *extremely* limited, and the other people are devoid of curiosity or initiative, just fulfilling their roles. The two new people begin to add a note of chaos to things, and in the process the characters begin to have awakenings… and color seeps into the environment. A flower here, a tongue there, and soon signs, trees, cars and whole people are appearing in glorious technicolor as they realize that there’s more to life than their roles. It’s an amusing fantasy that I first saw in the late 90’s, and last saw probably more than 20 years ago.

But upon rewatching it… I’ve decided it’s not just some lighthearted fantasy. It’s a sequel to “Tron.”

The “TV show” is a simulation based on the old TV show. The characters are actual NPCs, nonsentient avatars just going through their programmed motions. The “magic remote” is a much more advanced version of the laser “scanner” from “Tron,” and it uploads the two new users into the Pleasantville grid. The simulation is capable of learning and growth, and the non-sentient NPC slowly, and sometimes quickly,  come to awareness. And when characters or objects get a resolution increase, they go from black and white to color. At the end, the simulation expands: previously, when you went to the end of Main Street, you found yourself at the beginning of Main Street: the simulated universe was at best a few miles across. but now there is a college in the town of Springfield, 12 miles away. The simulation is growing.

I assume Don Knotts is a former employee of Encom, likely a friend and co-worker of Kevin Flynn. In “Tron: Legacy” Flynn is stated to have disappeared in 1989, and we find out that he’d been stuck in a simulation of his own ever since. In 1982’s “Tron,” the laser scanner was the size of a building; by 1989 it was portable enough to be installed in a basement. I guess Knotts, who was clearly enough of a fan of the old “Pleasantville” show to have created a simulation based on it, had continued development to the point where the scanner was now hand-held. Throughout the course of the movie it’s shown that he stays in a “TV Repair” van outside the real-world house of the two experimental subjects; perhaps the scanner is connected to the actual simulation hardware contained within the van through a wifi system.

At the end of the movie, Tobey returns to the real world, while his mean-girl, vapid and slutty sister stays behind: she does so because she, too has come to an awakening, and is now going to the college that appears at the end of the movie. Since several days had passed within the simulation while less than and hour had passed in the real world, the sister should be able to get a fair education in relatively short real-world time; of course, the education will be uncredentialed. But it’s better to be educated than not, regardless of whether you can prove it with paperwork. On the other hand… at the end Knotts drives away, presumably taking the simulation with him. How will Tobey get back into it? How will his sister get out? How will they communicate? These are left unanswered

 Posted by at 1:27 pm
Nov 182023
 

The second Starship/Superheavy launched today. Vastly more successful than the first flight, but both stages were still destroyed.

This sort of thing would be unacceptable for a modern NASA launch system… but it was common in early launch vehicle development. Atlas and Titan kerploded with regularity. This sort of thing is not desirable, but it is a natural part of the learning process.

Scott Manley has done an analysis of the video and has some good suggestions about what happened with the booster. There would seem likely to be some serious issues with slosh and propellant hammer effects, caused by the sudden deceleration and flip maneuver. These are resolvable.

But beyond the technical issues and successes… this flight was simply *gorgeous.*

 

 

 

 Posted by at 4:24 pm
Nov 042023
 

Several models of the Starship Enterprise were built for the original “Star Trek” series. The most famous is the 11-foot model which was used for most of the effects shots, and *amazingly* managed to survive long enough to end up in the hands of the National Air and Space Museum. But before the 11-footer was a 3-footer. This was made early on, and was solid wood with no lighting; still, it was used in a number of shots. This model stayed in the hands of Gene Roddenberry, modified to rest on a mike stand bolted to a wooden base. This model was lent to the first special effects house during the production of the aborted “Star Trek Phase II” series in the mid-70’s… and then it vanished. Whether it was stolen, misplaced or lost has not been clear, but Roddenberry considered it to be stolen. Stuff like this that disappears stands a good chance of never being seen again. Witness many of the models made for “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

But then, the “Aries Ib” model for “2001” was found a few years ago. And as it turns out, that 3-foot Enterprise was recently found. It was in a storage unit, purchased by someone who buys such things at auction. The new owner then put it on ebay with a starting price of a mere $1000. And then Star Trek fandom found out about it and has been going nuts. The Roddenberry estate contacted the seller and the auction has been pulled.

News was revealed here:

https://www.therpf.com/forums/threads/red-alert-lost-3-ft-tos-enterprise-found.354596/

The current seller has broken no laws… it seems he just bought an abandoned storage unit. But the Enterprise remains stolen property and should be returned to the Roddenberry estate. Still… it sure seems like the seller aught to be compensated for finding this thing, even if he didn’t really know quite what he had. It’s in pretty rough shape, as can be expected. With luck it’ll receive some sort of restoration, though arguments can be made for exactly how far that should go. It should definitely be cleaned up. It’s drooping and cracked; that should be fixed. But fixing the paint and decals? I don’t know about that. Perhaps it, unlike the NASM Enterprise, should retain the appearance of years. There are some “errors” that were there from the beginning, those should stay.

It is very unlikely that this will ever see an auction. But if it does, it’ll doubtless go for Lotto-levels  of cash.

The photos from the ebay listing:

 Posted by at 10:13 pm
Oct 242023
 

I guess this is kinda cool, a dress – at least the front side of one – composed of “scales” that can change from mirror-chrome to dull metallic on command. But even though it’s made of individual scales, it does not appear to be terribly flexible, and seems likely to be uncomfortable.

Still, if it could do more than just “shiny/matte,” but actually change colors, it seems like it might have a future. Specifically… plate *actual* steel scales with this material and make practical lamellar armor that can change color. That seems like it might be an interesting fashion for the future as society continues to get “enriched.” Shiny, perhaps even golden, armor when you’re out and about, and at the flick of a switch it turns matte black when the time comes to throw down.

Sure, here it seems to be pitched at the female market. But I suggest culturally appropriating the tech and making it the Must Have Man Product of the 2030’s.

 

 Posted by at 11:51 pm
Oct 172023
 

All evidence points to the forthcoming “Snow White” live action movie from Disney being something of a train wreck. It is a remake of the 19430’s animated classic, but it’s getting rid of pretty much everything… Snow White was originally prettier than the Evil Queen, now she’s objectively “meh;” Snow White was originally a love story, now Prince Charming is wholly absent and the Snow White character seems to be devoid of any motive but personal ambition for power; Snow White had seven dwarves, now a Bennetton Ad of “magical creatures;” and originally the actress for Snow White wasn’t an insufferable doofus, now it’s Rachel Zegler. *Lots* of people have a serious problem with almost every decision Disney has made here.

But here’s the thing: “Snow White” is public domain. Anyone can make a Snow White movie.

So the conservative “Daily Wire” new outlet is doing just that. Is it going to be any good? I dunno. Honestly I’m dubious… “really high quality movies” is not something I normally associate with “politically driven media company.” And it is in a way something of a “mockbuster,” a movie made specifically to ride the coat tails of a much more expensive studio production. But it is the right way to counter Disney’s crap: do it yourself. Make an effort to show how it *should* be done.

 

The “Bent Key” production company seems to be going all-out on content creation:

I have hopes that this will work out. Not because I have any particular interest in Bent Key (first I heard of ’em was when I saw the Snow White trailer), but because if they succeed, *maybe* there’s a very slim chance of some stories getting told correctly. If they can get the rights, imagine a *proper* telling of, say, “Have Spacesuit Will Travel” or “Red Planet” or “Rocketship Galileo,” or – and this would be spectacular – “Tom Swift Jr.” I have no idea if they *want* to tell these classic SF yarns, but I do know that I don’t want legacy Hollywood to tackle them. Because they *would* (and have) screw them up to the point of mutilating them.

 Posted by at 1:36 am
Oct 102023
 

Sadly not a lot of info on this. The Vulcan Aircraft (Houston, TX) “Starfire” concept from the mid/late 1980s used lift vans and vectored thrust for VTOL. Both military and civilian uses planned. Seems kinda reasonable, if perhaps a bit light on power. The basic design seems like it might be more practical today, though of course someone would try to make it all-electric.

If anybody has anything more on this, let me know!

 Posted by at 11:01 pm
Oct 082023
 

What he says is interesting… mostly because it’s not what I generally expect to hear from non-sci-fi/non-science types. Most of “those people” look at “2001” with some mix of bafflement and disdain, generally bored out of their minds.

 Posted by at 8:37 am